"he boasted, on his userpage at Commons, that he had obtained permission from the official Kremlin.ru site for all photos there to be uploaded to Commons under Creative Commons licenses." I've put a lot of effort over at least decade and a half, lobbying for my (United Kingdom) government to make content (including RAF imagery) and data available under open licences. Does that make me corrupt? Is everyone who puts a PD US government (including USAF and NASA) image into an article also corrupt? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits17:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty silly idea, Andy. I give 5 quick reasons why Russavia looks suspicious, then you take one out of the Russian context and suggest that I'm accusing you of being corrupt. With Russiavia you should look at the big picture, e.g. his block log on en.wiki at [1], how many times does it need to go beyond warning the guy to blocking the guy, to globally blocking the guy indefinitely before you can see there is something suspicious about the guy. Or you might look at his collection of hundreds of "Polandballs" c:Category:Polandball to conclude that this is the most racist stuff you've seen onWiki. Get real. Smallbones(smalltalk)22:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The number one country I would be concerned about in terms of government employee editing of articles is Israel, who didn't even get mentioned as one of the Big Scaries. I think it's also pretty ludicrous worrying about the permanuked editor Russavia at this late date. Then again, you once dismissed me as a "paid editor" in an ad hominem manner, as I recall, so I guess we should all just consider the source. xoxo, —tim //// Carrite (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment @Carrite:. My aim here was to get a reasonable conversation going with Larry Sanger an all those who think that US government employees are doing something they shouldn't be doing with Wikipedia. As above, I think that most of the concerns are overstated (except for the politicians and the spooks). I hope everybody realizes that Heritage Foundation, (maybe) Musk, and the ADL have all expressed some interest in dragging the WMF in front of Congress and perhaps attacking the WMF tax exempt status, so we should have some conversation to prepare for that. The politicians wouldn't be too worrying except for the shear number of them that edit and get caught. It is the spooks who worry me, but how am I going to expose any major group of spooks editing here? Even the WMF would have great difficulty dealing with them IMHO. In fact I on't really want to know any specific plans the WMF has - to have any chance at all of dealing with the problem they should keep their plans secret.
So you commented on Israel - are they a problem? I just checked an ISSI 2021 report on the major cyberwarfare powers [2] see also a secondary source [3]. They list
Top tier - USA only
2nd tier: Australia, Canada, China, France, Israel, Russia and the United Kingdom. So Israel is in there
3rd tier: India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Malaysia, North Korea and Vietnam
Cyberwarfare indeed is a specialized discipline requiring top level technical capabilities that not all countries have. Propagandistically disrupting wikipedia can be done by much less skilled people operating on a comparatively shoestring budget. Unlike many countries Israel is known for being rather aggressive in its approach to public relations and it could certainly stand to benefit from skewing our coverage even to a moderate extent. (t · c) buidhe07:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've made the correction. In general, readers can make ordinary copy editing changes like this one, but not anything that would change the meaning. So thanks for asking and being careful. Smallbones(smalltalk)00:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with such laws and/or regulations is that they tend to be overbroad. For example, I've disclosed that I've been paid money as an election worker or election consultant or poll watcher (not all on the same day - that's another conflict of interest). I've been a seasonal employee of boards of elections for years. If the Federal government forbids any funds of any kind being used for Federal elections, then I would not be able to work with the local board of elections in 2026 or 2028. Or I would be forced to quit an as editor here. That would violate my First Amendment rights. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, one of the big problems would be if they get away from "Federal employees" and go to "Federal money". Federal money works its way thru the whole economy. An example 1) rebuilding bridges. With big collapsed bridges (e.g. in Baltimore, Philadelphia, Minneapolis). Federal money will go to the state effected, and then to contractors and sub-contractors. Say one of the subcontractors is being paid to keep the public informed on the progress of the rebuilding, putting text and photos online. Could the subcontractor give permission or help a Wikipedian upload the photos to Commons? How about the general contractor or the state? 2) Or maybe a non-profit uses some federal money to put on a play or build a specialized school. Or 3) volunteers work for the National Park Service, e.g. as tour guides or cashiers in a museum shop. They might not get paid, but would likely use break facilities or get a "free lunch". Could they work in any way with Wikipedia? I'd think the only realistic cutoff point would be for any prohibition to apply only to Federal employees. Smallbones(smalltalk)20:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The US government has funded several Wikimedian-in-Residence positions through the Department of Agriculture, the National Archives, and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. These positions sometimes include editing Wikipedia, and I consider them incredibly positive contributions. But yeah, government employees shouldn't be editing pages about candidates on-the-clock. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok @Rachel Helps (BYU):, this is important. At first glance, it looks like Sanger may have been right. First, I'd like to know if any Wikipedian is currently being paid to edit as a Federal government employee. If so, please do not publicly reveal their name or user:name as that may be considered outing (revealing their employer). But I would certainly like to know so that I can check it out. I think you can at least reveal the number of people you are talking about. And please email me with as much info you are comfortable releasing. My other major concerns are about how long ago the Wikimedians-in-Residence were editing, and were they direct federal employees (or was it a grant via a private organization). I'll leave it there for now, but I'm likely to get back to you. Smallbones(smalltalk)17:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Right" in what sense? I'd be delighted if we had assistance from the (US) National Archives on (American) Civil War regiments. Or from the (UK) Dept. of Nat. Heritage on listed buildings. Nor do I see this outwith Government responsibility for the education of the population. I certainly don't want any political editing from any government - or anyone else. All the best: RichFarmbrough22:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
@Rich Farmbrough: Sorry, I should have written "Sanger may have been correct" in his sly evidence-free accusations that there are federal employees directly contributing to Wikipedia. There would certainly be nothing wrong with NRHP employees supplying Wikipedians with better data for historical listings, but we get exactly what the general public gets, which is worse than our own listings except for the new listings (our listings are cobbled together from federal and state agencies). I'd guess NARA has muster roles for Union regiments in the US Civil War, but I've never seen one and if they wanted to get these out to the public, likely the most efficient way would be to put them on Wikipedia. Smallbones(smalltalk)21:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I did mention UK, Canada, and Australia briefly above, but we're really just dealing with US federal employees here (except for analogies). It's actually getting to be a good party or conversation now. I'm learning a few things. Thanks. Smallbones(smalltalk)19:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-03-22/Opinion
← Back to Opinion